Cristina Hurducas

Bio: Cristina Hurducas is an academic researcher from University of South Florida. The author has contributed to research in topics: Risk assessment & Mental health. The author has an hindex of 3, co-authored 4 publications receiving 162 citations.

International Perspectives on the practical application of violence risk assessment : a global survey of 44 countries

Abstract: Mental health professionals are routinely called upon to assess the risk of violence presented by their patients. Prior surveys of risk assessment methods have been largely circumscribed to individual countries and have not compared the practices of different professional disciplines. Therefore, a Web-based survey was developed to examine methods of violence risk assessment across six continents, and to compare the perceived utility of these methods by psychologists, psychiatrists, and nurses. The survey was translated into nine languages and distributed to members of 59 national and international organizations. Surveys were completed by 2135 respondents from 44 countries. Respondents in all six continents reported using instruments to assess, manage, and monitor violence risk, with over half of risk assessments in the past 12 months conducted using such an instrument. Respondents in Asia and South America reported conducting fewer structured assessments, and psychologists reported using instruments more ...

La práctica de la evaluación del riesgo de violencia en España

Abstract: La valoracion del riesgo de violencia es un requisito fundamental en la toma de decisiones profesionales que implican prevenir, intervenir o informar sobre la conducta de las personas. El uso de herramientas estructuradas mejora la precision de las evaluaciones basadas en el juicio clinico en contextos psiquiatricos, penitenciarios y juridicos. Este estudio presenta resultados de la primera encuesta sobre el uso de herramientas de evaluacion del riesgo de violencia y sobre su utilidad percibida en Espana. Las escalas de psicopatia (PCL-R y PCL:SV) y el HCR-20 encabezaron la lista de las herramientas mas usadas tanto por eleccion personal como por requisito institucional. Se ofrecen datos novedosos sobre las practicas profesionales de evaluacion del riesgo de violencia que pueden orientar a los profesionales que desempenan su tarea en contextos sanitarios, correccionales y forenses, donde los instrumentos estructurados son frecuentemente usados para asistirlos en la toma de decisiones.

Kriminalprognosen in der Praxis: die Ergebnisse des International Risk Surveys (IRiS) aus Deutschland

Abstract: Zusammenfassung. Einschatzungen uber das Risiko zukunftiger Gewalttatigkeit sind ein fester Bestandteil der Arbeit von Psychologinnen und Psychologen, wobei bis heute wenig daruber bekannt ist, in welcher Form kriminalprognostische Einschatzungen in der alltaglichen Berufspraxis vorgenommen werden. Durch die vorliegende Forschungsarbeit wird erstmals ein Einblick in die kriminalprognostische Praxis in Deutschland gegeben. In der vorliegenden Studie werden die Ergebnisse des International Risk Surveys (IRiS; Singh et al., 2014) ausgewertet, an der weltweit 2135 Personen aus 44 Landern teilgenommen haben. Aus Deutschland wurden 97 Psychologinnen und Psychologen sowie Angehorige anderer Berufsgruppen uber ihre kriminalprognostischen Tatigkeiten befragt. Die Daten zeigen, dass mittlerweile in der Praxis mehrheitlich auf standardisierte Prognoseinstrumente zuruckgegriffen wird. Die Instrumente werden nicht nur fur die prognostische Einschatzung uber das zukunftige Gewaltrisiko als nutzlich eingestuft, sondern ...

Enquête internationale sur les pratiques d’évaluation du risque de violence : présentation des données belges

Abstract: Objective Mental health professionals are routinely called upon to assess the violence risk presented by their patients, frequently aided by structured instruments. Though surveys of risk assessment and management have been conducted, these efforts have been largely circumscribed to individual countries and have not compared the practices of members of different professional disciplines. Method A web-based survey was developed to examine the international use of structured instruments in the violence risk assessment process across five continents and to compare the perceived utility of such instruments by psychologists, psychiatrists, and nurses. The survey was translated into nine languages and distributed to members of 59 national and international organizations following the Dillman total Survey Design method. Belgium results The Belgium sample was composed of 86 mental health professionals (69 psychologists, 12 psychiatrists, 1 nurse and 4 other professionals). Respondents had an average age of 43.93 years and 10.85 years of which was spend in practice. Over half of their time in the past 12 months was spent on clinical activities, most often in forensic hospitals followed by private practice and correctional institutions. Additional responsibilities over the past 12 months included administrative duties, teaching with comparatively little time being spent on research pursuits. Respondents reported having conducted an average of 211.68 violence risk assessment in their lifetimes, over half of which with the aid of a structured instrument. In the past 12 months, respondents conducted an average of 40.76 violence risk assessments, again over half of which using a structured instrument. Over both their lifetimes and the past 12 months, respondents reported that the instrument most commonly using in the violence risk assessment process were the: PCL-R (Psychopathy Checklist Revised; Hare 1991, 2003), the HCR-20 (Historical Clinical Risk; Webster, Douglas, Eaves, et Hart, 1997), the VRAG (Violence Risk Appraisal Guide; Quinsey, Harris, Rice et Cormier, 2006) and the SAPROF (Structured Assessment of PROtective Factors for violence risk; de Vogel, de Ruiter, Bouman, & de Vries Robbe, 2011). The PCL-R and the HCR-20 are the most used instruments. As for the perceived usefulness of these instruments by respondents, the utility for risk assessment was described as “quite useful” and “useful” for the PCL-R, HCR-20 and the SAPROF. The usefulness of the VRAG was more nuanced. To develop a violence risk management plan or implement violence risk management plan, the instruments were used less frequently, however, the HCR-20 was the instrument found most useful, followed by PCL-R and SAPROF.

Performance of recidivism risk assessment instruments in U.S. correctional settings.

Abstract: With the population of adults under correctional supervision in the United States at an all-time high, psychologists and other professionals working in U.S. correctional agencies face mounting pressures to identify offenders at greater risk of recidivism and to guide treatment and supervision recommendations. Risk assessment instruments are increasingly being used to assist with these tasks; however, relatively little is known regarding the performance of these tools in U.S. correctional settings. In this review, we synthesize the findings of studies examining the predictive validity of assessments completed using instruments designed to predict general recidivism risk, including committing a new crime and violating conditions of probation or parole, among adult offenders in the United States. We searched for studies conducted in the United States and published between January 1970 and December 2012 in peer-reviewed journals, government reports, master's theses, and doctoral dissertations using PsycINFO, the U.S. National Criminal Justice Reference Service Abstracts, and Google. We identified 53 studies (72 samples) conducted in U.S. correctional settings examining the predictive validity of 19 risk assessment instruments. The instruments varied widely in the number, type, and content of their items. For most instruments, predictive validity had been examined in 1 or 2 studies conducted in the United States that were published during the reference period. Only 2 studies reported on interrater reliability. No instrument emerged as producing the "most" reliable and valid risk assessments. Findings suggest the need for continued evaluation of the performance of instruments used to predict recidivism risk in U.S. correctional agencies. (PsycINFO Database Record

Communicating the results of criterion referenced prediction measures: Risk categories for the Static-99R and Static-2002R sexual offender risk assessment tools

Abstract: This article describes principles for developing risk category labels for criterion referenced prediction measures, and demonstrates their utility by creating new risk categories for the Static-99R and Static-2002R sexual offender risk assessment tools. Currently, risk assessments in corrections and forensic mental health are typically summarized in 1 of 3 words: low, moderate, or high. Although these risk labels have strong influence on decision makers, they are interpreted differently across settings, even among trained professionals. The current article provides a framework for standardizing risk communication by matching (a) the information contained in risk tools to (b) a broadly applicable classification of "riskiness" that is independent of any particular offender risk scale. We found that the new, common STATIC risk categories not only increase concordance of risk classification (from 51% to 72%)-they also allow evaluators to make the same inferences for offenders in the same category regardless of which instrument was used to assign category membership. More generally, we argue that the risk categories should be linked to the decisions at hand, and that risk communication can be improved by grounding these risk categories in evidence-based definitions. (PsycINFO Database Record

Do risk assessment tools help manage and reduce risk of violence and reoffending? A systematic review.

Abstract: Although it is widely believed that risk assessment tools can help manage risk of violence and offending, it is unclear what evidence exists to support this view. As such, we conducted a systematic review and narrative synthesis. To identify studies, we searched 13 databases, reviewed reference lists, and contacted experts. Through this review, we identified 73 published and unpublished studies (N = 31,551 psychiatric patients and offenders, N = 10,002 professionals) that examined either professionals' risk management efforts following the use of a tool, or rates of violence or offending following the implementation of a tool. These studies included a variety of populations (e.g., adults, adolescents), tools, and study designs. The primary findings were as follows: (a) despite some promising findings, professionals do not consistently adhere to tools or apply them to guide their risk management efforts; (b) following the use of a tool, match to the risk principle is moderate and match to the needs principle is limited, as many needs remained unaddressed; (c) there is insufficient evidence to conclude that tools directly reduce violence or reoffending, as findings are mixed; and (d) tools appear to have a more beneficial impact on risk management when agencies use careful implementation procedures and provide staff with training and guidelines related to risk management. In sum, although risk assessment tools may be an important starting point, they do not guarantee effective treatment or risk management. However, certain strategies may bolster their utility. (PsycINFO Database Record